Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators
Date	2016-02-23 08:04 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<nahotp$tp9$4@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <5a869643-ba91-446e-a284-4f6ea8bd3c05@googlegroups.com> <7be51f13-3cc4-4e01-a60d-875a8f0b5eb5@googlegroups.com> <f4359498-1ada-4198-a520-cf33ba667ed3@googlegroups.com> <nafk6n$1dr4$2@gioia.aioe.org> <01fa9815-e6a3-4c36-8661-0ca2d2aa7a40@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/22/2016 1:44 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd..
>>>> BUT, they seem to have also compressed the time
>>> scale of the Hanford data ,to make it match the other detectors
>>> time axis strain profile.
>
>> No they didn't.
>
> Yes they did. Look at the Hanford predicted data. There is a peak
> at 0.34 sec, and a peak at 0.4 and a peak at 0.423
> Measure the distance between these three peaks. I get 24 mm between
> the first two. And 32mm between 0.34 and 0.423.
> Now go to the Hanford 'shifted' graph. Although the Livingston
> profile is the same,  the Hanford 'shifted' is now 21.5 mm and
> 29mm respectively between 0.34-0.4sec and 0.34-0.423
> Predicted 24      32
> Shifted     21.5   29
>
> Thats 12% less on the time scale for Hanford shifted data
> than Hanford predicted.

Shifted AND inverted. When you invert the pattern and overlay, you see 
the effect of the increasing frequency.

Helps to read the text surrounding the pictures.


>
> In case thats not clear to you yet,..this means that when they
> compiled the bottom or *third* graph on their website, to show the Hanford
> and Livingston data together on one graph. They used Livingston data
> with the same time scale as is from the middle Livingston data graph.
> But, the Hanford data timescale was compressed by 12% compared to its
> original observed timescale from the top Hanford 'predicted' graph.. (This
> is in addition to moving the Hanford forward to account for the time delay)
>
> To match the two datasets they fiddled the timescale of the Hanford data
> when comparing it to the Livingston data.!
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 12:25 -0800
  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-20 22:16 +0100
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:19 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:39 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 01:31 -0500
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:59 -0600
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:03 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:40 -0500
  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:55 -0600
  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 01:47 -0800
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 22:46 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 01:44 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 05:58 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 06:14 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:31 -0600
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 11:44 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 14:26 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:04 -0600
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:01 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:16 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:26 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:06 -0600
  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 11:57 -0600
  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:46 -0800
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:16 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:29 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:40 -0600
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:00 -0600
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 14:29 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:24 -0800

csiph-web